Yet, a recent editorial in The New York Times condemning President Obama's atrocious record of enforcing immigration laws - and previous editorials that ran in the Times before the presidential election - brought to mind a classic 1972 tune by Johnny Nash. Here's an amended version:

On Sept. 7, 2013, the Times editorial board did something out of character: criticized the president it had twice endorsed. At issue was his administration's immigration enforcement policies.

The editorial - "Deportees, Then and Now" - began: "Congress returns from recess this week with the immigration system still failing and repairs still undone. President Obama is still promising solutions, but his administration remains a huge part of the problem."

It's a problem when an administration sets monthly quotas for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to apprehend a certain number of illegal immigrants, deports about 1,000 people per day, and racks up a record number of deportations. It's a problem when Janet Napolitano, then the secretary of Homeland Security, claims that more than half of those deported were criminals when - according to an audit by Syracuse University - only about 15 percent were; the rest were laborers. And it's a problem when the administration separates families, putting children who are U.S.-born in foster care and undocumented kids in detention facilities for long stretches without legal counsel in violation of ICE's own policies.

The editorial goes on: "Mr. Obama speaks of embracing immigrants but has deported nearly 2 million of them. He and Ms. Napolitano, who left office last week, always said they were focused on catching dangerous criminals, but they cast a wide net that has fallen hard on day laborers, carwash employees, farm workers and others who pose no threat."

This is unheard of.

The Times is reluctant to criticize Obama on many issues, but it has been especially lenient when it comes to his immigration policies.

Either way, you can pretty much be assured that this editorial would never have run before the presidential election. Back then, Democratic strategists were worried that Latino voters had an enthusiasm gap for Obama.

This editorial could have worsened that angst, and cost the president some of his Latino support.

Besides, the Times editorial page saved its slings and arrows for Republicans. On Feb. 20, 2012, in an editorial titled "Immigration and The Campaign," the Times blasted Romney for pushing "self-deportation" which it described as "a fantasy of ridding the country of 11 million unauthorized immigrants by making their lives unbearable."

Here is what is unbearable: That there are people who think that the idea that illegal immigrants might leave the country on their own and take their children with them is somehow less humane than Obama-style deportation where ICE agents bust down the door, take mommy away in handcuffs and leave the kids to fend for themselves.

The editorial gently pokes at Obama, saying that he has "hardly been inspiring on this issue." But at least, it says, the president "understands that the right immigration solution is one that doesn't reward illegality but channels immigrant energy and aspirations to fruitful ends."

That's fiction. It's not clear that Obama understands any such thing. What he is best at is channeling illegal immigrants out of the country, and the only aspirations he is defending are those of working-class Americans who are convinced that they would be paid more if they didn't have to compete with illegal immigrant workers.

When it comes to Obama and immigration, the members of The New York Times editorial board have long been plagued by what George W. Bush called the soft bigotry of low expectations. Judging by this latest editorial, let's hope that they have started to overcome it.